M A I N   N E W S

PM’s long silence miffs apex court
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

Summary of CAG report The 77-page report says routine procedures not followed while allotting 2G Spectrum to telecom firms in 2007-08 Presumptive revenue loss pegged at Rs 1.76 lakh crore Loss estimated on the basis of rates fetched by the 3G auction this year and large number of applicants (575) What Raja ignored PM’s suggestion to auction Spectrum and revise entry fee Law ministry’s suggestion that an EGoM deliberate on the allotment first A cabinet decision (2003) that only ‘additional spectrum’ be provided at 2001 rates Omissions & Commissions Although there were a large number of applicants, suggestions, even from the PM, that the spectrum be auctioned were overruled The spectrum was offered in 2008 at the rates that prevailed in 2001 The allotment was made on "first-come-first-served" basis As many as 85 of the licensees (out of 122) were ineligible 85 licences were allotted to 6 companies None of these 6 companies ( Unitech with brand name Uninor, Swan or Etisalat, Allianz, Datacom, S Tel and Shipping Stop Dot Com ) had rolled out the service The department failed to recover Rs 679 crore as penalty from the six companies for failure to roll out on schedule Many of the allottees had formed companies barely months before the allotment Several allottees were allowed to sell their stakes at huge profit within months of the allotment

New Delhi, November 16
The Supreme Court today said it was troubled by the long delay by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in responding to a plea for permission to prosecute then Telecom Minister A Raja for his alleged involvement in the 2G spectrum scam involving an estimated revenue loss of Rs 1.7 lakh crore to the government.

A Bench comprising Justices GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly made the remark while hearing a petition by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking the court’s directive to the Prime Minister for granting sanction (permission) to file a case against Raja in his personal capacity as a citizen concerned about good governance.

The Bench noted that Swamy had written to the PM on November 29, 2008, citing “specific instances” of irregularities in the allocation of spectrum, while the CBI registered a case against “unknown” persons, officials and companies almost 11 months later — on October 21, 2009.

The apex court observed that the sanctioning authority waited for another five months for responding to Swamy’s plea, informing him that since the CBI was also probing the issue it would be “premature” to accord permission to the private complainant for prosecuting Raja.

The Bench also took exception to the use of the word “premature” as it appeared as if the sanctioning authority was questioning the complainant’s right, provided under law, to seek sanction at a “premature” stage. The highest Constitutional authority of the country should have worded the response carefully, it felt.

Further, the CBI report on its investigations was “something outside the purview” of the complainant’s plea. “This is what is troubling us,” the Bench noted, observing that the sanctioning authority was supposed to have decided on the plea on the basis of the material provided by Swamy. Swamy had argued that going by the SC guidelines, the PM should have taken a decision, one way or the other, on his plea within three months. The guidelines allowed one-month extra time in corruption cases involving legal advice from top law officers.

The Bench also wanted to know from Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium why the PM did not refer Swamy’s plea to the Attorney General or other top law officers, instead of forwarding it to the CBI.

A journalist reads a copy of the CAG report

The SG said the three-month deadline for the sanctioning authority was applicable only in cases where the official investigating agencies had completed their probe and not in cases involving individuals wanting to prosecute officials or ministers on charges of corruption. Swamy clarified to the court that he was pursuing his petition only for academic interest as he no longer required permission to file a case against Raja since the DMK leader had quit as Telecom Minister.

The JP chief said it was unfortunate the PM had not granted sanction even two years after he had sought permission, which had anyway become infructuous now. At one stage of the argument, the Bench questioned whether the sanctioning authority could “sit tight” over such pleas and remain silent for so long.